Here is the brief background by Kristine Kwok
in the South China Morning Post (via Asia
Media):

A veteran editor of the outspoken China Youth Daily has taken the newspaper's editor-in-chief to task for allegedly restraining editorial freedom and succumbing to party dogma.
In a high-profile move, Li Datong, who edits the Bingdian Weekly, an influential section of the paper that runs investigative stories every Wednesday, wrote an open letter to the paper's staff questioning a new appraisal system which pegs journalists' bonuses to praise by party and government leaders.
The new editor-in-chief, Li Erliang, took over in December in a reshuffle regarded as a sign of a tightening of media controls by the authorities.

The lengthy letter by Li Datong was posted on the popular chat room Yannan BBS yesterday and picked up by other chat rooms.
When contacted by the South China Morning Post, Li Datong said he had written the letter on behalf of the paper's editorial staff but declined to comment.
"This is an internal letter I wrote for the editorial department and the management. But somehow it was leaked," he said.

In the following, I have made a full
translation of the letter. The original can be found at Observechina
and any number of other websites. P.S. There is a reference to a
post by He Yanguang; you can find a partial translation at the bottom of this
previous post Public Criticisms in China.

A leading state-run newspaper has scrapped a controversial appraisal system linking reporters' pay to government approval after a high-profile protest by a veteran editor.
The unexpected move to drop the proposal was announced yesterday after the management held meetings to discuss concerns by Li and other editorial staff, said senior staff members.
"They have scrapped the appraisal system and will design a new plan," a staff member close to the discussions said.

At the Monday office business meeting, you
asked for a collection of opinions about the new appraisal system by the
various departments, all to be completed within one week. These
regulations will be operational on August 20. Although not a single
department head had seen these regulations beforehand, it seems that the
editorial committee meeting notes has affirmed the proposal and proclaimed on
their own: "The direction is obvious, the principles are clear, the rules
are precise, the coverage is extensive with powerful relevance and
operatability" and other words of praise. This showed that you and
the editorial committee have no intention of having any adequate discussion or
possible revision with respect to basic news standards at the newspapers or
the personal interests of all the workers at the newspaper.

Upon understanding, the purpose as well as
all the details of these regulations were shown to most members of the
editorial committee right before the meeting itself. This very important
and detailed set of regulations was accepted by the committee in the course of
a two to three hour meeting, which must be an administrative miracle. I
also understand that these regulations were virtually the creation of yourself
alone, and it was "hugely different" from the original draft
prepared by Deputy Editor Wen Xin after a large amount of investigation and
research. It is certain that you have made significant and substantive
changes to the "Wen Xin proposal." It is just as shocking to
see that at the high-level discussion of this important set of regulations,
Wang Hongyu -- who is the publisher and party secretary responsible for the
management of the newspaper -- had been absent as if he was not needed.

On the afternoon of August 8, this set of
regulations was released on the newspaper intra-net. The newspaper
editors and reporters saw them for the first time, and it caused a big
stir. As I was busy editing, I did not have the time to look at them
carefully. After completing my work on Wednesday, our department met to
discuss the regulations. That was when I started to examine these
regulations in detail. After careful reading, I don't know how to
express my shock and anger ...

The core of these regulations is that the
standards for appraising the performance of the newspapers will not be on the
basis of the media role according to Marxism. It is not based upon the
basic principles of the Chinese Communist Party. It is not based upon
the spirit of President Hu Jintao about how power, rights and sentiments
should be tied to the people. It is not based upon whether the
masses of readers will be satisfied. Instead, the appraisal standard will
depend upon whether a small number of senior organizations or officials like
it or not.

Secondly, this is a method for delivering or
withholding special interests. The excellent journalistic culture at China Youth Daily
will be thoroughly destroyed. Instead of promoting
positive social developments, supporting social justice, protecting public
interests, encouraging enthusiasm in the reforms, exposing corrupt officials,
denouncing corrupt social practices and encouraging deep reflection and being China Youth Daily
journalists who have a clear sense of our historical
responsibility, we will become a bunch of vulgar workers who sit around week
after week arguing how many "points" we deserve. Since the
number of points that are given out is finite, and the actual decision-making
power is in the hands of neither an "objective and fair" third party
nor the readers but the supervisors, this will inevitably lead to an obedience
to the people on top and fights and intrigues among the equals.

Without doubt, the vulgarization and
enslavement of the China Youth Daily journalists is being gradually and
systematically implemented under your direction (in the name of the editorial
committee) and put into writing in the appraisal regulations -- and that is a
document that is attempting to subvert the spirit and value of the China Youth Daily.

Let us look at the following regulations:

Adding points:

(3) In each month's reader survey,
the top three most frequently read articles receive 50 points extra for the
author; numbers 4 through 10 receive 30 points extra.

(5) If the Chinese Youth Communist
Party central committee praises an article, the author will receive 80
points extra.

(6) If the Central Propaganda Bureau
praises an article, the author will receive 120 points extra; if it is
singled out for praise in the Central Propaganda Bureau's "News
Commentary", the author will receive 100 points extra; if it is named
for praise in the "News Commentary, the author will receive 50 points
extra.

(7) If an article is praised by the
national department or a provincial committee, the author will receive 100
points; if a national department or provincial committee writes to praise,
the author will receive 80 points.

(8) If an article is praised by the
central leadership (members of the Politburo or higher), the author will
receive 300 points.

From (5) through (8), if an article was
praised, the corresponding editor will receive extra points equal to 30% of
the author's.

Subtracting points:

(6) In the items (5) through (8) in
previous section on "adding points", anyone who is criticized by
name will get points subtracted in the same amount.

As I read these regulations, I could not
believe my eyes. When a report or a page received the highest accolade
from the readers, only 50 points is awarded. But if a certain official
likes it, there is at least 80 extra points up to a maximum of 300
point! Even worse, in the section on 'subtracting points,' points will
be deducted when officials criticize it. What does that mean?

This means that no matter how much effort was
put into your report, no matter how difficult your investigation was, no
matter how well written your report was, and even if your life had been
threatened during the process (and enough reporters have been beaten up for
trying to report the truth), and no matter how much the readers praised the
report, as long as some official is unhappy and makes a few "critical"
comments, then all your work is worth zero, you have added zero to the
reputation of the newspaper and your readers' opinions is worth less than a
fart -- in fact, you will be penalized as much as this month's wages!

Under this unreasonable system, the editors
and reporters will go out of their minds instead of worrying about media's
role to monitor. Oddly enough, the most basic and irreplaceable role for
mainstream media to act as the conscience of society and to seek justice for
the socially vulnerable groups is completely missing in this document about
the appraisal regulations. This cannot possibly be explained as due to
"omission" or "negligence."

Other than the normal small awards, the
editor-in-chief has a special "incentive method." This is a
"grand" prize which is worth as much as 20,000 RMB. How does
one qualify for this award? The rules are as follows:

Rule #1: "A-page among the top
three". Hey, that is completely on the say-so of the
editor-in-chief. "Total points among the top eight
reporters." What is that leading to? It disadvantages those
rare exclusive, in-depth and well-written investigative reports that will
enhance the reputation of our newspaper and get us more subscribers.
This newspaper does not lack ephemeral junk articles.

Rule #2: Quite expectedly, it is
about being praised by officials. The more praises, the higher the
award.

Rule #3: "Mission accomplished
in major assignments under the editorial committee." Everybody
knows that this means the typical propaganda activity such as the two
Congresses. How can any media increase "their brand name and
influence" with this? Besides, such articles are pre-determined
to be non-competitive because they are designated to appear on a certain
date in a certain space, even though nobody may read it. (If this
refers to complicated cases that require multiple resources and coordination
in the interest of monitoring and opinion expression, such as the Caoyuan
High School cheating scandal, then I am 100 percent for it).

Rule #4: "Encountering huge risks
during the process but was able to overcome the difficulties to complete the
mission." Thank heavens! If this is not referring to a
traffic accident, then this finally touches media monitoring. But this
is clearly in conflict with the previously listed rules: a critical article
will usually make the officials in the monitored departments quite angry and
may even receive reprimands from the senior supervisors (the rate is no less
than 50%, and as many as 40% of the articles are "killed" before
publication). Under those circumstances, should the grand award also
have "point deductions"? It goes without say that this is
the case. You are lucky if you didn't get punished! If an
article received the highest praise from the readers and caused a huge
social impact but was also criticized by a certain senior official, then how
shall that be dealt with according to this rule? It is an act of mercy
to let the two cancel each other out, but the reporter and editor will
likely get deductions ...

In this letter, I have no intention of giving
a technical discussion of each and single regulation (although there are
unreasonable situations all over the place, such as treating a 600-700 word
news brief the same as a 4,000-5,000 investigative report). I listed the
above points because they represent of the basic core values of the appraisal
system. These points leads to an important question: Where is the China Youth Daily
heading? Will the China Youth Daily live or die?

Since you began working at this newspaper,
the phrase "We are a party newspaper for the Party and the Chinese Youth
League's Central Committee" has been repeated to us relentlessly in all
the meetings, large and small. At a meeting of department heads, you
even said used threatening words like "You must understand what you are
doing." Perhaps you think that the old and new stalwarts at the
Beijing Youth Daily had never figured out what they were doing or that they
had no idea what is a party's newspaper or a League Central Committee
paper. So you are now giving us a lecture. But talking is not
enough, so you have to design a rigorous 'system' -- so you won't be
personally punishing us; instead, you are just "following the rules of
the system."

When you first began working here, you gave
your inaugural speech and you sounded sincere when you said things like the China Youth Daily
is a newspaper with a excellent historical tradition, it
has good social standing, it has a lot of social influence, it has a trained
and quality team of editors and reporters and you hope to be accepted and
"quickly blended into the group." Those words were quite
moving, and the staff including elder editors like myself held hopes for
you. We hoped that you will quickly get to know this newspaper's deep
tradition and work with us to compete in the marketplace and maintain our
quality and brand. But what do we see instead? You were not trying
to "blend" in. You were trying hard to transform this
newspaper. Within the set of regulations that you personally drafted,
the future of the China Youth Daily is clear: It will sadly become the next
<<Guangming Daily>>; it will have zero social impact; its
circulation will dwindle unspeakably so -- and this was a newspaper that was
the first to use truth as the standard and was the most memorable newspapers
in the 1980's.

We are not na´ve enough to think that this
was the product of you personally. It goes without say that you were
merely the executor. Yet you have no psychological inhibition, you were
creative and you were pro-active. The goal is to transform the China Youth Daily
quickly into a party organ that the League Central Secretariat had
in mind. This type of "party organ" has one characteristic: it
must unconditionally help one to "get the right conditions for a
promotion" and everything else that gets in one's way must be destroyed.

I joined the newspaper in 1979, and it has
been 26 years already. I have gone through the reform process that began
with the thirteenth central party congress, and I have personally observed the
leadership qualities of the League Secretary Generals from Comrade Hu Qili, to
Wang Zhaoguo, Hu Jintao, Song Defu and Li Keqiang. They came to the
newspaper frequently; they gave speeches or they chatted with the
editors. When Comrade Hu Qili was a standing member of the Politburo, he
still came down to the newspaper to listen to ideas and made long and frank
exchanges with us about propagandizing the news. When Comrade Chen Haosu
was managing the newspaper, he wanted to understand the production process and
he came in the middle of winter in a great coat and worked with the editors in
the night shift until the newspaper was printed early morning. When
Comrade Wang Zhaoguo became the first secretary of the League Central (I had
previously interviewed him), he came to the newspaper to attend see the
reporters who were participating in the national journalists' conference and
he spoke with us in the crowded conference room. On festive occasions,
Comrade Hu Jintao always dropped by to see us and speak with the department
heads; afterwards, he always insisted on visiting with the kitchen staff.

In the early 1980's, during one of the Two
Congresses, it was five or six o'clock in the evening and I was asked by the
newspaper to interview the members of the Political Consultative Committee
with a deadline of 10 pm. It so happened that Comrade Hu Jintao (who was
the Standing Secretary of the League Central) was my neighbor. I knocked
on his door and explained my situation. Comrade Hu suggested that I
should interview the grassroots representatives instead. I said that the
newspaper named him specifically and I said, "Whether you want to speak
or not, you will have to speak." When Comrade Hu Jintao heard me
say that, he let me interview him. He understood the nature of
journalistic work -- at the time, I was a lowly reporter who had just entered
the industry, but he was not offended by my very direct request for an
interview.

When the League Central wanted to award the
May 4 medal for the first time, the recipient was Qin Wengui who covered the
story of the Xinjiang oilfields. It was important that his feats be
publicized beforehand. As the League Central's party organ, we had the
obvious obligation to report on this progressive person. According to
the usual rules, the League Central only had to issue a directive to us.
But what did League Central First Secretary Li Keqiang do? One day, the
newspaper received a notice that the Assistant Editor-in-Chief and I should go
to a meeting at the League Central Secretariat's office. Why was an
ordinary editor asked to go to the meeting at the Secretariat? Well, it
turns out that the Secretariat thought that the Freezing Point section of the
newspaper was best at showcasing people and they wanted to meet with its
editor to see how best to showcase Qin. On that day, Standing Secretary
Liu Peng chaired the meeting and he said: "Datong, you are the
expert. How to showcase this case will mainly depend on your advice
..." Wasn't that a wonderful leadership quality? Freezing Point
was located on Page 8 and it does not usually have a propaganda role, but
Comrade Liu Peng wanted to seek advice and I could only honestly offer my
opinion in detail: "the conditions for creating a sensation like the
Zhang Haidi case have disappeared, because readers today prefer to see an
intimate but not unapproachable progressive character. If your reporting
is 'tall, huge and complete,' the readers will resent it." In the
end, Comrade Liu Peng asked me if I could assign an Freezing Point reporter for
this promotion. Although I did not think that this was within my domain,
I still assigned the best Freezing Point reporter and this Freezing Point personal
showcase appeared as a front page headliner. Thereafter, the reports of
Qin Wengui were followed everywhere. Some years later, our reporter
interviewed Qin Wengui and asked him which was the most satisfying report of
his. He replied: "The one that the Freezing Point reporter
wrote." This was not the result of an order -- when the leader had
such class and style, we were willing to step up.

One time, Comrade Li Keqiang came to the
newspaper office to see the Editor-in-Chief on business. He passed by my
office and came in to say: "Datong, your Freezing Point is becoming
hot!" I joked with him: "You take care of millions of things
every day. When do you have the time to read Freezing Point?"
"But I read every issue, and I sometimes write commentary directly on the
newspaper," he said. How many of the current leaders in the League
Central Secretariat have spoken with our editors this way?

League Central Secretary Qiang Daming was a
co-manager of the newspaper. One time, his secretary found him crying in
his office. She peeked at what he was doing, and saw that he was reading
an Freezing Point report and crying for the fates of the children in the
report. When I heard this narration, I was touched. It showed that
while the Secretaries at the League Central were our direct superiors, they
still read the newspapers like ordinary readers and became moved in the same
way. This is an expression of humanistic values, not 'official' values.

How many stories like these about the League
Central Secretaries can be told by the veteran editors and reporters of this
newspapers? Our editors-in-chief know even more. Xi Bingxuan had
co-managed our newspaper while he was a standing deputy director of the
Central Propaganda Department. When our Editor-in-Chief wanted to see
him, he always asked his secretary to make time without ever refusing.
When Comrade Hu Chunhua managed the newspaper, there was an Freezing Point report
that was severely criticized by a certain provincial party committee.
But after reading the research materials turned in by our reporter, Comrade Hu
said: "It looks like we'll have to fight all the way!" After
all, it was his home province! After a few rounds, whether it was inside
the party or out in the courts, we never lost. If Comrade Hu had any
concern about his official career or if he distrusted or disrespected the
professionalism of our report, would he have taken that position?

These are the deeds and attitudes of our
newspaper under the leadership of the various League Central Secretariats and
the co-managing secretaries. I have worked here for so many years, and
no editor has ever said that we are not a party newspaper or that we do not
represent the ideas and opinions of the League Central organization. On
the contrary, the various League Central Secretariat beginning with the
democratic style of Comrade Hu Yaobang never imposed orders, they respected
highly the operational procedures of the media and understood the difficulties
of running a newspaper, and so they carefully led and loved this newspaper and
accepted their own responsibilities. Who can deny that the high esteem
for the China Youth Daily also belonged to the League Central?

The China Youth Daily did not develop from
a vacuum to what it is today. It was influenced by the democratic style
of Comrade Hu Yaobang and it was led by the various League Central
Secretariats and through the combined efforts of everybody from the
editors-in-Chief to the frontline editors and reporters, the China Youth Daily
became a newspaper with "high social esteem, huge social influence
and public trust." This became the most popular of all party
newspapers. On account of this reputation, many editors and reporters
prefer to work here their entire lives. Most university journalism
graduates are proud to be able to get a job here. We know that party
newspapers were created under special circumstances during wartime.
After the People's Republic was founded, the system was continued. But
the reality was that the financial capital, the workers' wages and the
subscription fees from the party members really all came from the
taxpayers. Therefore, a party newspaper is obliged to repay and satisfy
the people. It is a requirement for a party to satisfy the readers and
the people, or else we are finished.

When Zhao Yong co-managed this newspaper, he
ought to understand how to continue the leadership principles and styles of
the various League Secretariats of the past. But in his first meeting
with the department heads and senior cadres, he took out a copy of the 1951
document from the founding of the newspaper and told us veterans that the China Youth Daily
is a party newspaper, that it is a newspaper of the League
Central and then he warned us that anyone who doesn't want to work here can
leave. I criticized him immediately ... there has never ever been a
League Central Secretary who came to the newspaper to speak in that kind of
threatening tone about something so absurd and ridiculous!

Does that mean that prior to the arrival of
the current League Central Secretariat's Li Erliang, the China Youth Daily was not a party newspaper and not a League Central newspaper? If you
accept this viewpoint, then you will have denied all the leadership work prior
to Zhou Qiang and Zhao Yong; you will have denied all the accomplishments by
the previous publishers and editors-in-chief that are respected by peers; you
will have denied the journalistic tradition of the China Youth Daily as a
party newspaper and a League Central newspaper. And you will have denied
the hard efforts made by all the previous generations of China Youth Daily journalists.

Does Zhao Yong really think that all these
editors-in-chief and department heads did not even have that much
commonsense? That they did not even know about this simple professional
definition? That they did not have any professional
self-knowledge? Of course not!

In a word, Zhao Yong looked at things
completely opposite to the views of the various League Central Secretariats of
the past. He believed that the China Youth Daily was not the party
newspaper of his mind. His idea of a party newspaper is a father-son
relationship. When the father yells, the son trembles; if the father
wants the son to go north, the son would not dare go south. So how come
this newspaper never seems to be able to act according to the will of
others? Why does it periodically even offend official colleagues and
pose a threat to my own career?

The very cold facts are that the China Youth Daily
is facing serious problems in terms of surviving and
developing. The circulation is decreasing from year to year. The
advertising revenue is not worth mentioning. The newspaper had a
significant operating deficit last year. At the same time, many urban
newspapers have begun to look and act like mainstream newspapers, including
their responsibility to report. They are getting better with the news
and commentary. In terms of business, there are numerous newspapers that
make hundreds of millions per year from advertisements ... the mainstream
newspapers in China are now facing a bad situation in their business.
This reflects the choice of the readers; it is also the choice of the
market. As to how to deal with this highly competitive situation to
restore the party newspapers to prominence, the choice is obvious. There
is no choice but to win the trust of the people, like Marx's "people's
news": "It must live among the people, it must share the problems
and pains with the people, it must love and hate with the people, it must
fairly tell all the things that people hope for and suffer from."
Marx emphasized: "The trust of the people is the condition for a
newspaper to live. Without this condition, the newspaper will
shrivel."

Yet how did Zhao Yong want to
"lead" the party newspaper as the League Central Co-managing
Secretary? He emphasized several times that the newspaper must cut out
the "Youth Theme" section. He wanted to cut out Freezing Point
Weekly; he was unsuccessfully but he cut out at least half the space; he
wanted to eliminate the most popular scholars' column. He wanted to
eliminate the influence of these brand-name sections. Zhao knew that
from the various reader surveys over the years that these are the most read
and most beloved sections (the average monthly levels are over 70%, being over
80% sometimes; Freezing Point had even gone as high as 92%), and these are also the
highest rated brands according to the news professionals. Freezing Point
was
not only rated by the Central Propaganda Department as a "famous program
of major central news media", it was also selected as the "best
known news program in China by National Journalists Association (the National
Journalists Association conducted a large-scale survey of readers in seven
provinces and Freezing Point was number one in the nation). In another survey
of county- and local-level party secretaries, Freezing Point and Youth Themes were
ranked number 1 and 2 in readership. You told me yourself: "Don't I
know what the readers want to see? My wife wants me to bring Wednesday's
newspaper home because she wants to read Freezing Point!" Did you tell
Zhao Yong that?

So why is anything that is loved and welcomed
by the readers not suitable for the purpose and principles of a party
newspaper? Is this Marx's news viewpoint? Is this dictated by the
party's propaganda requirement? Is this consistent with Comrade Hu
Jintao's new governing ideas for the Party Central?

Without doubt, these newly unveiled appraisal
regulations exposed your and the current League Central Co-managing
Secretary's true standards for evaluating a party newspaper -- that is, you
watch to see if a small number of officials are satisfied. If they are
satisfied, rewards are due. If their sensitivity and interests are
disturbed and they criticize, then you will be punished! Without doubt,
this is a total reversal of the principles and values of the previous League
Central Secretariats.

You have your ideas about how to run a party
newspaper. After attending a class on "opinion battle" for
editors-in-chief, you told us back at the office that you have "finally
totally understood." What did you understand? You understood
that "propagandizing" comes from "needs." At the
meeting, you pointed to our reporter who was covering the Ren Changxia case,
"Everybody knows that the relationship between Ren Changxia and her
husband was very tense, but when you write the case up, you should write that
relationship as being better. This is a matter of need." You
also offered the example of Kong Fansen. You said that you knew him
well. Although he was a decent person, he has his flaws. "He
is flesh and bone. He is full of emotions. When we propagandize
him, we cannot talk about this side of him. We cannot mention his
flaws. We must write about how good he is ..." You laughed
and everybody laughed, as if we understood what "full of emotions"
meant. As for "opinions", you "understood" how it
came about. You can create rumors and tell lies. You said,
"This was how America went to war against Iraq!"

Never mind whether America was like that or
whether American media were like that. Even if that were true, we should
not imitate their example. Creating rumors and lies based upon
"needs" means making up and re-arranging facts. Such behavior
have been thoroughly rejected by Chinese media, at the repeated insistence of
the Central Propaganda Department. You came over from the People's
Daily. Did the colleagues at People's Daily not reflect with pain and
regret that their "propaganda" and "opinions" during the
periods of the Great Leap Forward, the Anti-Rightist Campaign and the Cultural
Revolution" caused grave damage to the country and the people? Are
such behavior not to be rejected thoroughly forever by all party newspapers,
including our newspaper? Did you not notice when you spoke about how you
"finally totally understood," some people in the audience were
snickering?

At the recently concluded national reporters'
conference, I heard that you taught the reporters about your ideas on
"planning news." Some years ago, Zhengzhou built a large
bridge and the local officials wanted to show it off in People's
Daily." There are hundreds and thousands of bridges in China, so
how does the Zhengzhou bridge get onto the front page of the People's
Daily. This was impossible. But at that time, you were the Henan
reporter for People's Daily, so you 'planned' to have a couple who had been
married for 50 years to be present on the bridge. Then this piece of
'news' landed on the front of the People's Daily (did you write that
article?). You were proud of your creation, and you said that this was
praised by then Henan Party Secretary Li Changchun. Perhaps you believe
that this is how a party newspaper ought to be run. I have nothing to
say about such ideas, except to tell you that I have never heard anything like
that after working 26 years at this newspaper. If it was known that a
reporter actively created 'news', our newspaper's rules say that not only will
this 'news' be killed instantaneously, but that reporter will lose all his/her
reputation.

In your inaugural speech as editor-in-chief,
you described your experience on how you ran a newspaper as
editor-in-chief. You said that the key was that you were "good at
writing assessments." This means that you knew clearly that a
report that is popular with the readers will often be criticized by your
superiors. "Being good at writing assessments" means being
good at handling these criticisms. This was an expert opinion that
captures the dilemma that Chinese journalists, especially those working at
party newspapers, face between popular reception and official criticism.
All the department heads welcomed those remarks of yours with loud clapping.

But merely eight months later, you have made
a 180 degree quick turn. At the national reporters' meeting, you
declared: there will be no more criticisms from the supervisors. The
reporters were happy because they won't have to be pressured! But you
also said that a good report is one that will be praised by the various
leaders. Which of these two totally opposite stands represents the real
you? Do you know that even before the reporters' conference was over,
many reporters went to see those editors who wrote criticisms that they regret
that there won't be any more such in the future? Did you know that when
many editors such as myself heard about this outcome, we felt an infinite
despair? Did you know that many local reporters told me that this was
the most 'dispiriting' and 'most disappointing' of all reporters'
conferences? And one reporter told me that they were 'warned' before
coming: "Don't speak out" at the conference. Who asked them
and why did they ask the reporters to "shut up"? Is any of
this normal?

A while ago, there was an 'incident' at the
newspaper. The reason why this was called an incident was that this was
turned into a document for the editorial committee. The target was
photograph director He Yanguang's criticism of an article by one of our
commentators. A special characteristic of the culture at this newspaper
was that there are often free criticisms and counter-criticisms within our
organization. The editors and reporters can see the exchange between
different ideas and make their own judgment. But this was a relatively
less important function, for it is the atmosphere of freely conducted debates
that is the most important. Such practices encourage people to be
honest, tolerant and open, and it is an invaluable spiritual resource for a
national newspaper. I have taken on our deputy editor-in-chief Chen
Xiaochuan as a debate opponent, by posting his criticism of an Freezing Point report next to my point-by-point rebuttal. This is quite normal within
our newspaper. Just like the posting on the Internet, there are no
restrictions and it does not affect our operations. Yet, this normal
matter became an 'incident' and the editorial committee issued an
"official document" for the first time in history over a normal
internal criticism. The document was deceptive and ignorant in refuting
He Yanguang's opinion and therefore set a bad precedent. The purpose of
this document was clear: if you want to freely express criticisms, you better
figure how much weight you carry around here!

In He Yanguang's post, he only pointed out a
couple of things: "General Secretary Hu Jintao's directives were like a
beacon that illuminated the forward direction of university students" and
so on. There was sufficient basis to assert that this involved the cult
of personality as well as using Cultural Revolution terminology. He
Yanguang did not criticize the article as a whole. Quite the opposite,
he and I have spoken with others that these kinds of commentary can be written
and it can be written well, but it should never use the special terminology
that was involved in the cult of the personality during the Cultural Revolution.
This particular commentator was undoubtedly correct with respect to party
rules and party standards about the contents of the comments. There is
also no doubt that with the exception of the editorial committee, everybody
agreed with He Yanguang's criticisms. Even the commentators did not
disagree. Their director Li Fang said, "If I wrote anything like
this, I would chop my hand off!" So this is a mysterious matter:
those who were criticized were willing, even content, to be criticized, but
the critic was criticized by the top leadership in the form of a
document. The document did not mention whether there was any validity to
the criticism; instead, it attacked the critic for inappropriate use of
language. Meanwhile, the two principals continued to speak and
communicate with each other without rancor.

Speaking of stopping the cult of personality,
I have to tell a story. "How are you, Xiaoping?" was a
classical news photograph. It was taken by He Yanguang. It was
sent to the night shift in the editor-in-chief's office. At the time,
the veteran journalist Wei Fangai was in charge and his first reaction was
that "this cannot be released" on the ground that this was
"advocating the cult of the personality"! After repeated
explanations that this was a pure photograph that came spontaneously from
university students, the editor on duty finally agreed to put the photograph
on page 4 for only two columns wide. What did that say? It showed
how serious our newspaper was against the cult of the personality.
Nobody can deny that this was the culture at the China Youth Daily.

Meanwhile, at our League's fifteenth
congress, we showed photographs of Jiang Zemin and Hu Jintao when they were
the General Secretaries with young league members on the front page.
Don't you think that our editors know how to handle that? But Zhao Yong
was worried. Later, the night shift staff told me that Zhao came down
personally and measured the sizes of the photographs and wondered where they
ought to be placed. A League Central Secretary ended up volunteering as
an editor. Why did he have to do something that was not his job?
Because the next day, the special issue will be presented to the former and
current General Secretaries of the Party. None of the other former
League Central Secretaries ever had to go through this.

Comparing the two cases, do you think that
the editorial committee ought to think about whether it was appropriate to
issue a document that criticized the critic? How did the editorial
committee reach a "consensus" on this? How kind of historical
record will there be for the newspaper? Our feeling is that this is a
shameful page in the cultural history of the China Youth Daily.

This non-incident has continued on as
Commentary Department director Li Fang has decided to leave the
newspaper. He is leaving the Youth Themes which he personally created
and nurtured; he is leaving the page that has the greatest impact on
"public opinion"; this is like his "son"! For some
time, he told me that he was crying and having nightmares. When he saw
the document from the editorial committee, his mind was made up. A few
days ago, he came into my office and told me that "there shall be a
resolution." I was wondering what needed to be "resolved"
-- so this is what it is!

Previously, the workers at the Commentary
Department held a meeting and asked their director Li Fang to see the
editor-in-chief to clarify the bottom line for the conscience and shame of the
commentators at our newspaper. He came to you in pain, but what did you
say? You did not have the time to listen to a department director's
explanation. You did not fairly discuss how to improve the commentary in
the China Youth Daily in order to avoid the usage of "beacons" and
other rotten terminology and thoughts that were a laughing stock to readers
and other journalists. You said, "The values of the China Youth Daily
are your values. The 'hidden script' is that my values are the
values of the China Youth Daily!" Moreover, your tone gave him no
further room for discussion. So what if he is unhappy? But now we
know that a department director at the China Youth Daily answered to his own
conscience -- he told the publisher Wang Hongyou: "I cannot be Zhao
Yong's dog!"

This sentence will definitely go into the
history of the newspaper -- he is the first department director who can walk
out with this clear reason and he is a true man. Nobody can deny that he
was forced out because our newspaper leader gave him no room left to hold his
moral position. It is an incredible shame as well as sarcasm on us not
to be able to hold on to this talented, creative and warm-hearted
colleague. We cannot help but wonder with alarm: how many more
colleagues with some sense of shame and conscience will follow the footsteps
of Li Fang?

It is an undeniable fact that the atmosphere
at our newspaper has been abnormal for quite some time. Increasingly,
people feel that they can't talk. Everybody is worried and scared.
All sorts of irresponsible rumors abound. Vulgarity and obedience
abound. The meeting notes of the editorial committee always say
"unanimously agree"; the public comment section only has adulations
and self-aggrandizement. All the routine official "letters of
gratitude" from various provincial departments after completing the
required propaganda work are even published, as if we had never seen that kind
of stuff before. So now those praises will continue to multiply with the
newly announced appraisal regulations. Hey, there's money
involved! What kind of guidance is that?

When you first became a judge for the China
Journalism Awards as the editor-in-chief of China Youth Daily, you came back
and told us about how you worked hard to make sure that our newspaper received
certain awards. You even said that you gave the good cigarettes that
someone gave you to another group leader. You laughed at this as being
"bribery." You wonder why nobody at this newspaper takes this
"highest award" in Chinese journalism seriously. At two
meetings, you demanded us to pay "a high level of attention" and you
said that "the appraisal will depend on this because it is hardware
..."

Normally speaking, our newspaper ought to
value this high-level rating by our peers, and work to find out how we can
receive this honor. But a few years after these awards were established,
one can no longer take it seriously. Not only is it fixed by
"official" position (that is, the high-level media are guaranteed to
receive more awards) and the judging also became a "great balancing
act." The hosting newspaper is guaranteed to receive awards, and
the other media will get awards too. Old Xu was a veteran judge for
these awards, but I have never heard him explain the details of the judging,
not even in private. He just came back and told us about the
results. It was not worth speaking about, nor should he bother. If
you had not come back and speak so colorfully about it in great detail, I
really had no idea that it had been corrupted to such a disgusting
extent. This is just a transaction made in the dark, with some minor
intrigue. Who is going to respect the awards that came as a result of
such 'judging'? How are the good works going to be recognized? The
problem is at which point did you ever consider the rating of the readers
about this newspaper? Why didn't you regard the reader's ratings as the
hardware for appraisal in the same way, and it is even harder? Which
newspaper has been welcomed by its readers because it received the large
number of official awards?

When you became editor-in-chief, the office
business meetings had a brand new sight. You read loudly with proper
announcement from the "News Commentary." You often read the
entire essay. This time, you openly inject the news commentator's praise
or criticism as part of the editors and reporters' appraisal. Which
Central Government document or Central Propaganda Department document gave
this authority to the news commentators. Nobody! These people are
just ordinary workers with the Central Propaganda Department, and their
commentaries only reflect their personal opinions. What are their
qualifications? What are their special experiences and education that
qualify them to issue final verdicts that are beyond the challenge of the
veteran editors-in-chief at various central news organizations?

The opinions of the news commentators is one
part of the normal democratic life within the party. If they are sincere
and look at the facts to make fair and correct commentator, we should regard
them seriously. But if these kinds of criticisms are baseless, reified,
partial, poorly argued and accusatory (and most of the criticism fall into
category), then the criticized party should be able to follow the standard
rules within the party and exercise the rights guaranteed by the party laws to
offer counter-criticisms. Such is the normal way of party life.
These days, the personal opinions of the news critics seemed to be Damocles'
sword handing over the media's heads, which can fall any day due to some
comrade leader's commentator (note: the comrade leaders at the Central
Propaganda Department and the Central Government do not have the time to
compare the original article with the criticisms)! The reality is that
the editor-in-chiefs at the criticized newspaper often disagree with these
news criticisms, but they seldom protest in accordance to the party
regulations, because this would create an impression of "resisting one's
superiors" and therefore all those intra-party democratic regulations are
vacuous.

These news commentaries are released fairly frequently,
sometimes two to three issues per week, and so this became the decisive factor
for "directing" the various news units. An abnormal situation
has arisen in which the news units are trying to get close to the news
commentator groups; they seek relationships; they treat them to banquets and
they present expensive presents, usually with the publisher and
editor-in-chief as hosts. They hope that the news commentators will have
mercy and write fewer critical notes and more praises. To put it
bluntly, there is a new corrupt form of behavior inside the party.

Soon after you arrived at this newspaper, you
feted the news commentators' group. If this was purely for the 'safety'
of the newspaper, that is understandable (this is spending the blood-and-sweat
money of all the workers at the newspaper). But we now see that you are
taking the personal opinion of these people and making them the basis of the
punishment/reward system for the editors and reporters. You have just
given away the right of life and death over the editors and reporters.
What for? Who gave them that power? Did you? Did the
editorial committee? Did the Party Group talk about this? I don't
think so. Because this is too absurd. It has no basis according to
party regulations or national law. This seriously violates the legal
rights of the editors and reporters.

Apart from criticisms, the news commentators
group holds another weapon. That is, they can praise any newspaper that
they want to praise. Within the current abnormal party life, this
becomes a resource for a party leader to get a promotion. Driven by
personal political interests, some people will rush to get these
"praises" and even exchange interests in order to obtain them.
I have heard many people said that a certain Central Propaganda Department
News Bureau leader is a university classmate of yours, and some of the praises
for our newspaper was in fact written by our own staff and turned over to the
news commentators group for release. I dare not and I do not want to
believe that this could be true. I would rather say
"rumor." But the worse thing is that if all the various
provincial "letters of praise" were all written by the principals
themselves and then shipped out for an official stamp before returning it back
in, then this appraisal system is going to lead to a lot of disgraceful
'transactions' -- will these things not happen? Unfortunately, I have
heard about these rumors. I have no right to investigate the veracity of
these rumors, but the editorial committee has the obligation to investigate
and impose major sanctions if necessary; even if there is nothing there, this
must still be clarified because these rumors are spreading like poison gas
inside the newspapers and causing people to lapse ...

As for the new appraisal system, there are
many more things to say. For example, there are many improper aspects in
terms of technical and detail issues. But these are not the core
problem. The core problem is the problem of the direction of the
values. The appraisal problem is going to enslave, emasculate and
vulgarize the China Youth Daily. As a veteran editor who has given the
best 26 years of his life to the China Youth Daily, I am speaking on behalf
of all the colleagues in my department as well as colleagues in other
departments who agree with me. I ask the party as well as the editorial
committee to reconsider the foundations and contents of the Appraisal
Regulations. If you insist on going forward, then it will be clear that
the China Youth Daily will collapse within two to three years. Who
wants to see such an outcome? Who is going to be held responsible for
such an outcome? Who wants to recorded as the sinner in the history of
the newspaper?

Looking at the Appraisal Regulations, we can
no longer keep silent. We must publicly express our opinions.
Every colleague who accepts the values of the China Youth Daily has no
reason to stay silent any more. This is our right, as well as the
tradition under which we live. Silence equals downfall; silence is to
let the glorious China Youth Daily die in front of our generation ...

The top editors of the China Youth Daily were meeting in a conference room last August when their cell phones started buzzing quietly with text messages. One after another, they discreetly read the notes. Then they traded nervous glances.

Colleagues were informing them that a senior editor in the room, Li Datong, had done something astonishing. Just before the meeting, Li had posted a blistering letter on the newspaper's computer system attacking the Communist Party's propaganda czars and a plan by the editor in chief to dock reporters' pay if their stories upset party officials.

No one told the editor in chief. For 90 minutes, he ran the meeting, oblivious to the political storm that was brewing. Then Li announced what he had done.

The chief editor stammered and rushed back to his office, witnesses recalled. But by then, Li's memo had leaked and was spreading across the Internet in countless e-mails and instant messages. Copies were posted on China's most popular Web forums, and within hours people across the country were sending Li messages of support.

The government's Internet censors scrambled, ordering one Web site after another to delete the letter. But two days later, in an embarrassing retreat, the party bowed to public outrage and scrapped the editor in chief's plan to muzzle his reporters.

The episode illustrated the profound impact of the Internet on political discourse in China, and the challenge that the Web poses to the Communist Party's ability to control news and shape public opinion, key elements to its hold on power. The incident also set the stage for last month's decision to suspend publication of Freezing Point, the pioneering weekly supplement that Li edited for the state-run China Youth Daily.

Eleven years after young Chinese returning from graduate study in the United States persuaded the party to offer Internet access to the public, China is home to one of the largest, fastest-growing and most active populations of Internet users in the world, according to several surveys. With more than 111 million people connected to the Web, China ranks second to the United States.

Although just a fraction of all Chinese go online -- and most who do play games, download music or gossip with friends -- widespread Internet use in the nation's largest cities and among the educated is changing the way Chinese learn about the world and weakening the Communist Party's monopoly on the media. Studies show China's Internet users spend more time online than they do with television and newspapers, and they are increasingly turning to the Web for news instead of traditional state outlets.

The government has sought to control what people read and write on the Web, employing a bureaucracy of censors and one of the world's most technologically sophisticated system of filters. But the success of those measures has been mixed. As a catalyst that amplifies voices and accelerates events, the Internet presents a formidable challenge to China's authoritarian political system. Again and again, ordinary Chinese have used it to challenge the government, force their opinions to be heard and alter political outcomes.

The influence of the Web has grown over the past two years, even as President Hu Jintao has pursued the country's most severe crackdown on the state media in more than a decade. The party said last week that Freezing Point would resume publishing, but Li and a colleague were fired, making them the latest in a series of editors at state publications to lose their jobs.

With newspapers, magazines and television stations coming under tighter control, journalists and their audiences have sought refuge online. The party's censors have followed, but cyberspace in China remains contested terrain, where the rules are uncertain and an eloquent argument can wield surprising power.

Dueling Views

They clashed from the start, two men named Li with conflicting ideas of what a newspaper should be.

One was the maverick editor Li Datong, 52, a tall man with a scholarly air who had spent his entire career at the China Youth Daily and helped turn the official organ of the Communist Youth League into one of the country's best papers. After the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations in Tiananmen Square, he nearly lost his job for leading journalists in a petition drive seeking freedom of the press.

The other was the new editor in chief, Li Erliang, 50, short in stature and slick in manner, a favorite of the propaganda authorities who made his reputation running the party's official mouthpiece in Tibet. He was an outsider at the Daily, a product of the party apparatus who was sent in to get the paper's feisty staff under control.

One night soon after his arrival in December 2004, the new editor stopped the presses and tore out Li Datong's Freezing Point section because it contained an article criticizing the Chinese education system. The next morning, the chief editor went to Li Datong's office to explain, but Li was furious and refused to talk to him. He just kept writing, banging on his keyboard and ignoring his new boss, colleagues recalled.

Relations between the two men only got worse. The party's propaganda department had targeted Freezing Point in its media crackdown because it often published investigative reports that embarrassed officials, as well as essays on history, society and current events that challenged the party line. Colleagues said Li Erliang, who declined to be interviewed, tried to rein in the section to please his superiors. Li Datong, who spoke out after Freezing Point was suspended, said he fought to protect it.

"The propaganda department wanted to shut us down, and we were under a lot of pressure," he said. "They tried to get rid of our columnists and cut the size of the section and take away reporters, but we resisted."

Then, in August, Li Erliang proposed a point system for awarding bonuses to the paper's staff members. Reporters would receive 100 points if their articles were praised by provincial officials, 120 if praised by the propaganda department and 300 if praised by a member of the Politburo. Points would be deducted if officials criticized articles. Just one report that upset a party leader could mean loss of a month's salary.

The newsroom simmered with anger, reporters said. But Li Datong saw an opening to fight back. "The plan was just stupid," he said. "A newspaper can evaluate reporters that way, and many do, but it can't be so blatant about it."

Li holed up in his apartment, and two days later, emerged with a 13,000-word letter that denounced the point system, saying it would "enslave and emasculate" the paper, cause circulation to plummet and put the Daily out of business.

He also painted a damning picture of the propaganda apparatus. He described an official who measured photos of two party leaders before publication to make sure neither man would be offended. He wrote about a senior editor who resigned in protest over an obsequious column that compared President Hu's words to "a lighthouse beacon, pointing and illuminating the way for China's students." And he attacked the party's censors, questioning their legitimacy and alleging they favored publishers who showered them with gifts and banquets.

Li saved his harshest words for his new boss. But he crafted his letter carefully, citing the support of generations of party leaders for the paper's journalism and even quoting Karl Marx to make the case that editors should put readers first.

He showed the letter to a few colleagues and to the reporters on his staff. Then, on Aug. 15, at 10:09 a.m., he posted it on the newsroom's computer system. "I hoped it would have an impact," he said. "I never expected what happened next."

System of Censorship

Every Friday morning, executives from a dozen of China's most popular Internet news sites are summoned downtown by the Beijing Municipal Information Office, an agency that reports to the party's propaganda department.

The man who usually runs the meetings, Chen Hua, director of the Internet Propaganda Management Department, declined to be interviewed. But participants say he or one of his colleagues tells the executives what news they should keep off their sites and what items they should highlight in the week ahead.

These firms are private enterprises, and several, including Sina, Sohu and Yahoo! China, are listed on U.S. stock exchanges or have attracted U.S. investment. But because they need licenses to operate in China, they comply with the government's requests.

The meetings are part of a censorship system that includes a blacklist of foreign sites blocked in China and filters that can stop e-mail and make Web pages inaccessible if they contain certain keywords. Several agencies, most notably the police and propaganda authorities, assign personnel to monitor the Web.

The system is far from airtight. Software can help evade filters and provide access to blacklisted sites, and Internet companies often test the censors' limits in order to attract readers and boost profits. If an item isn't stopped by the filters and hasn't been covered in the Friday meetings, the government can be caught off guard.

That is what happened with Li Datong's letter. Minutes after he posted it, people in the newsroom began copying it and sending it to friends via e-mail and the instant messaging programs used by more than 81 million Chinese.

"We had to move quickly, before they started blocking it," recalled one senior editor, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Pu Zhiqiang, a lawyer and advocate of journalists' rights, said he received a copy at 10:20 a.m., 11 minutes after Li posted the original. He forwarded it to 300 people by e-mail and sent it to others using Microsoft's MSN Messenger program. Then he began posting it on some of the bulletin board sites that have proliferated in China.

At 11:36 a.m., Pu put the memo on a popular forum called Yannan. Then he noticed that someone had posted a copy on another part of the site.

About the same time, the editors' meeting at the China Youth Daily ended and Li Erliang rushed back to his office. Colleagues said he contacted superiors in the propaganda department and the Communist Youth League after reading the memo.

Neither the government's censors nor the editors at the major Web sites had begun deleting the letter, yet. Some editors said they waited because it didn't challenge the party's authority or discuss subjects that were clearly off-limits, such as the Tiananmen Square massacre. At the same time, the official censors either failed to spot the memo or hesitated to act because they were worried that some senior officials might support Li Datong's views, editors said.

As they waited, the letter continued to spread.

At 12:17 p.m., it appeared on an overseas news site run by the banned Falun Gong spiritual movement, and minutes later on others managed by exiled dissidents. These sites are blocked in China, but many people access them using software that slips past the government's firewall.

By 1:30 p.m., a prominent blogger, Li Xinde, had downloaded the memo. He said he sent it using China's top instant messaging service, QQ, to more than 20 chat groups, each with 30 to 40 members. By 2 p.m., the memo had been posted on popular university Web sites.

The document was spreading so fast that many people received multiple copies. A writer in Anhui province said that when he went online to check his e-mail at 2:30 p.m., four friends immediately offered to send him the memo on MSN Messenger. But two copies were already in his inbox, including one that had been sent to 1,000 people.

Race in Cyberspace

It was midafternoon before someone in the party bureaucracy decided Li Datong's letter should be removed from Chinese cyberspace and government officials began calling executives at the major Web sites.

Some said they were contacted by the Beijing Municipal Information Office, others by its national-level counterpart, the State Council Information Office. None reported receiving a formal notice or any legal justification for the decision. As usual, they were just told to delete the offending material.

There are at least 694,000 Web sites in China, according to official statistics, and the party didn't try to contact them all. They called the most popular sites in Beijing first. Hours passed before some smaller bulletin board sites were notified. Forums with national audiences in other cities received calls only at the end of the day.

At a recent news briefing, Liu Zhengrong, a senior Internet affairs official in the State Council Information Office, declined to explain the legal basis for the orders, saying only that many comments about the China Youth Daily remained on the Web.

Even as Li's memo began disappearing from some Web sites, it went up on others the authorities had not contacted. Shortly before 10 p.m., it was posted on the popular Tianya forum. At 11 p.m., it became a featured item on Bokee, China's top blog and portal site.

Almost everywhere the letter appeared, users added hundreds of comments backing the reporters of the China Youth Daily. Inside the newsroom, spirits were buoyed. Some journalists posted notes on the internal computer system supporting Li Datong.

The next morning, officials continued calling Web sites, but readers started posting the memo on sites that had already removed it. Some Web site managers said they tried to drag their feet or leave copies on less prominent pages. One said the memo was viewed 30,000 times before he took it down.

But other Web sites added Li Datong's name to keyword filters used to block sensitive material from being posted.

At 2:15 p.m., Li Erliang distributed a rebuttal on the China Youth Daily's internal network. It was quickly leaked, too, triggering another wave of e-mails and postings.

Authorities were scrambling for a way to end the controversy. A few hours after Blog-City, an overseas blogging site, was blocked, the party announced in a rare retreat that it was ditching Li Erliang's point system.

"It was a breakthrough, and the Internet played a critical role," said Xu Zhiyong, a civil rights lawyer in Beijing. "If something is written well enough, they can't stop it from spreading. People will find a way to read it."

Freezing Point enjoyed a renaissance in the months that followed. Li Erliang appeared chastened, unwilling to risk another fight he might lose, reporters said.

But in January, propaganda officials finally shut down the section. Before doing so, they called executives from all the major Web sites to a special meeting and warned them not to allow any discussion of the action.